Case law

Goryeb v. Com. Dept. of Public Welfare

525 Pa. 70 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 17, 1990

enumerated exceptions to immunity under the Sovereign Immunity Act relates to health care. … “Under well established precedent, if plaintiff produces sufficient evidence to demonstrate the mental condition of [the patient] warranted the duty asserted, the hospital would clearly be responsible for injury to the person

Commonwealth v. Franklin

397 Pa. Super. 265 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 27, 1990

The record clearly establishes that Mr. … Because the record clearly indicates that Mr.

Gass, M., Pets. v. 52nd Judicial District

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 18, 2020

Responding to the District’s argument, however, that Petitioners do not qualify for immunity since the Policy turns on an additional factor -- namely, Petitioners’ status as probationers -- we find that this circumstance … Accord Nelson, 195 P.3d at 832 (“When a qualifying patient uses medical marijuana in accordance with the MMA, he is 6 The District’s reliance on the ejusdem generis principle to suggest that immunity should apply only

Anderson v. Philadelphia

380 Pa. 528 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 14, 1955

In this appeal plaintiff concedes that the city was engaged in a governmental function, — which could render the city immune from liability; but insists that the testimony established the existence of a nuisance,— for which … And “it is true that municipalities are not clothed with immunity in certain cases, such as those involving highway construction, the building of public works, or the maintenance of a nuisance; these are well established

Commonwealth, Department of Public Welfare v. Ludlow Clinical Laboratories, Inc.

473 Pa. 299 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 3, 1977

Count II of the Commonwealth’s complaint, also in assumpsit, avers that if a recipient qualifies for both the state medical assistance program and the federal medicare program, federal regulations require that the testing … The Legislature, by the Act of May 20, 1937, P.L. 728, No. 193, § 1, et seq., as amended 72 P.S. § 4651-1, et seq., established the Board of Arbitration of Claims.

American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees v. Shapp

443 Pa. 527 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 24, 1971

We believe the Order granting the plaintiffs a preliminary injunction was justified only if the Governor’s actions were clearly in violation of plaintiffs’ Constitutional or Statutory rights. … , the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended by the Voting Rights Act of 1970, 42 U.S.C. §1971 , on which plaintiffs rely, was enacted to provide and make certain that all citizens of the United States, who are otherwise qualified

Zauflik, A., Aplt. v. Pennsbury School District

629 Pa. 1 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 19, 2014

Appellant’s Brief at 31 (citing Ayala, 305 A.2d at 883 (discussing common law immunity established by decisional law)). … Appellant has not met her burden of establishing that the Act’s damages cap clearly, palpably and plainly violates Article I, Section 6. Y.

Carrow v. Philadelphia

371 Pa. 255 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 24, 1952

test prescribed by the Personnel Director and approved by the Civil Service Commission", and that those who failed so to qualify should "be dismissed from their positions within thirty days after the establishment of an … The Charter did not dress them in a new suit of immunity from dismissal. They had never had such immunity — and it was not given them by the Charter.

Commonwealth v. Swinehart

541 Pa. 500 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 29, 1995

Clearly, there are compelling “pros” and “cons” on the question of the right against self-incrimination versus the need to immunize the witness. … Transactional immunity offers complete amnesty to the witness, a measure of protection clearly greater than the privilege against self-incrimination.

Clark v. Meade

377 Pa. 150 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 29, 1954

That the Act is also a special act cannot be denied, for it clearly grants special privileges and immunities. … 'the Act of 1953 clearly grants to individuals, in violation of the Article, a special or exclusive privilege or immunity.

Commonwealth v. Brady

470 Pa. 420 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 28, 1977

Thus, reference to the Corrupt Organizations Act of 1970 to interpret the previously enacted Immunity Act would clearly be improper. … The order to testify shall not be given except upon the order of court after a hearing in which the attorney general has established a need for the grant of immunity, as hereinafter provided.

In Re LaRussa

464 Pa. 86 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 3, 1975

The order to testify shall not be given except upon an order of court after a hearing in which the attorney general has established a need for the grant of immunity, as hereinafter provided.” … Moreover, we conclude that the Commonwealth establishes an adequate basis upon which the supervising court could find that there was sufficient need to grant immunity.

Johnson, A., Aplt. v. Wetzel, J.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 1, 2020

[J-99-2020] - 5 of care pursuant to which the Department was required to afford pre-deprivation process, and, moreover, the Department was immunized from liability under the doctrine of qualified immunity, which shields … immunity was inapplicable because Bundy’s due process requirements were clearly established in 2013 by various judicial decisions; and the Department’s own internal policy statement, entitled DC- ADM-005 (relating to

Commonwealth v. Johnson

507 Pa. 27 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 21, 1985

The evidence in this case established that on July 1, 1980 at approximately 2:30 a.m. a young woman was raped by two men. The rape occurred in a house on North 29th Street in Philadelphia. … The Superior Court concluded that the testimony sought to be immunized was not shown to be clearly exculpatory or essential, thus, the denial of immunity was sustainable.

Walsh v. City of Philadelphia

526 Pa. 227 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 9, 1991

Therefore, plaintiff has failed to establish that he is presently “unable to do or perform a bodily act which he was able to do or perform prior to the injury.” … Plaintiff has established sufficient facts to merit an award for pain and suffering under the statute.

Home v. Commonwealth, Department of Public Welfare

496 Pa. 204 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 5, 1981

Thus, any reliance on the alleged assurances made in 1975 was clearly unreasonable after D.P.W.’s refusal to relicense appellant in 1976. … the six-month limitation on actions is a limited waiver of sovereign immunity.

In Re: Adoption of the Pennsylvania Minor Judiciary Education Rules

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 23, 2023

(h) Program leaders or presenters shall be qualified with the practical and/or academic experience necessary to conduct the program effectively. … (e) At all hearings, the petitioner shall have the burden of proof of establishing compliance with these rules by a preponderance of the evidence.

Lykins v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board

552 Pa. 1 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 27, 1998

While I agree that Appellant herein is exempted, I am compelled nonetheless to write to emphasize that the analysis employed by the Commonwealth Court in its published opinion is erroneous and contrary to established case … of the recently enacted Sovereign Immunity Act.

Vine v. Commonwealth, State Employees' Retirement Board

607 Pa. 648 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 21, 2010

I suggest it is clearly established by the requirement of good faith. … There simply is no need for any statute to require good faith as a precursor for immunity, if immunity attaches because actual authority exists.

Brickhouse v. Spring-Ford Area School District

540 Pa. 176 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 4, 1995

certificate, he is qualified. … These features may establish a veteran’s eligibility to be considered for the position, but they will not establish that he is “qualified” for the job.